A speaker at a Students’ Union affili­ated society workshop said that homosexuals would be executed in an ideal Islamic state, describing the practice of two men kissing as an “atrocity.”

1st year Middle Eastern studies stu­dent Colin Cortbus recorded a public meeting organised by Global Aspirations for Women at the Students’ Union last Wednesday 13th February and asked the chairperson of the meeting whether “in the Islamic society in which you strive for,” they would “feel comfortable, personally and morally, to kill a gay man.”

She responded, “Absolutely,” and added later that homosexuality was an “atrocity, because it goes against what God says.”

In the meeting the speaker was also asked whether in the Islamic state they were advocating they would feel confident to kill him if he “did something as com­pletely innocent as kiss another man outside the Students’ Union.”

In response, the chair of the meeting said to the small group, “Yeah, abso­lutely,” adding, “But it’s the fact that you can’t just see it as it is. People have this issue that the punishment, penal code, everything is so completely inhumane, but who even says that these things are inhumane?”

When the debate moved onto the subject of the supposed negative effect of homosexuals on society, the chair declared that homosexuality “does not lead to social cohesion,” citing their in­ability to “pro-create” as evidence.

At this point, another attendee joined the debate, asking, “If they can’t have kids, why didn’t they die out ages ago?”

The chair­person’s position on stoning adulterers was then pressed. She reasoned: “Who’s to say that some­one else might see that and think ‘well if he’s allowed to do it why can’t I do it’.”

When Mr Cortbus argued that stoning was not an Islamic practice, the chair­person said: “Even if you went to some­one who was a Muslim, whether they like the idea of stoning an adulterer or not, they will still say to you that it is something that is in Islam.

“There aren’t Muslims who could say to you that it’s not part of Islam to stone an adulterer.”

The society lists its purpose on the Manchester Students’ Union website as “to highlight the universal aspirations of women and create discussions on cam­pus as to what these are and what can be done about it.”

They further claim to “create an environment in which students can come together and discuss concerns.”

Though their page on the Students’ Union website makes no reference to Islamic beliefs, their Facebook page – which has 91 likes – describes them as: “A UoM society set up to discuss the aspirations of women, whether these can be achieved under the current system and showing Islam as an alternative.”

The ‘alternative’ refers to the Caliphate, a political Islamic state governed by a religious leader, in which Sharia Law is enforced. During the workshop they can be heard supporting this political ideology.

In December, Global Aspirations for Women invited Julie Breen, a British convert to Islam, to come and give a talk at the Students’ Union to around 20 people. During the talk, she proposed the Caliphate as the only system in which women could be liberated.

Ms Breen can be found being interviewed on a YouTube video linked to radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir. In the video, she says she makes “no apology for capital punishment in an Islamic state.”

Khadijah Afzal, chair of Global Aspirations and speaking on behalf of the society, told The Mancunion, “Not once in the discussion was any of this advocated. It was a hypothetical discussion in which people were open to discuss their views, which or may not have necessarily been that of the society.

“The fact that you have pin pointed only the discussion on the punishment system in Islam shows that you are ignorant of Islam as a political system, and hence decided to play the media rhetoric of Islam equates to harsh punishments and lack of humanity.”

“People hold various views and opinions about a number of issues on campus, including fascists who are openly allowed to propagate their views under the guise of freedom of speech. What I ask of you is not to be intolerant towards debate especially when it goes against the grain of what you ardently hold on to.”

Khadijah Afzal refused to deny she was the speaker when asked by The Mancunion, but the Students’ Union could not confirm this.

A statement from Students’ Union Wellbeing Officer Cat Gray, read: “We are deeply concerned with the covert filming of a student event within the Union. We are also deeply concerned by the suggestion that comments of a homophobic nature have been made.

“The Union operates a safe space policy where students should not be subject to any form of intimidation or discrimination. We encourage students who wish to report incidents which have made them feel unsafe to contact any member of the Exec Team.”

this is a total disgrace, so this is what the universities are teaching the next generation of british leaders, teachers, and all other professions that will eventually be running this country.

it is now apparent to me how deep the islamic infiltration of our society has went. ISLAMOFASCISM is now the greatest threat that british people have ever had to face, it is time to stamp this hatred out. once and for all.

and what the hell has Global Aspirations of Women got to do with homosexuals being murdered. these women should be championing the liberation of gay man and woman.

do they actually know or understand in any way shape or form how islam treats woman and children. it is quite obviouse the islamic community are now targetting our youngest and most vulnerable to apply there agenda, as they do to there own kids. it is a form of collective brain washing.

this is the UK, not pakistan or egypt. i say to all muslims. this is not an islamic state, we do not murder homosexuals for there freedom of choice or expresion. you either fit in with our society. or just leave now, if not, we will force you to leave.

this country is heading for civil unrest, and this is exactly what the islamists want, but i can assure you right now, if it does happen.

the islamists will lose. i can guarantee you that right now. we will meet hate with unity. and islamic extremist violence with british justice. and if we cant have that, LET IT BE WAR.

Lucas Amos

Right on, the paper has done us all a service exposing these bigots.

Rashad Raoufi

It seems to me that this Mr Cortbus went in with a specific agenda for a ‘controversial’ story, because lets face it, nothing much really happens on Campus so this is classic hack tactic. The offender in question was responding to a theoritcal question in a hypothetical sitution…..the absurdity is orwellian.

Is his agenda relevant. He’s a middle eastern studies student. It’s entirely reasonable he went to the event where they were discussing laws in the middle east for a purely educational reason and was shocked by the things he heard. Even if he went with the express purpose of exposing what was going on at the event. It doesn’t make what occurred there any more reprehensible.

I can only agree with Rashad…
They were discussing laws in the middle east… According to local law, it is morally acceptable to kill homosexuals….
I don’t see the problem in pointing out facts :)

Pierce Nichols

The fact is that the chair said she’d consider it appropriate under a set of circumstances she was advocating for. That makes her a violent extremist.

Mr Cortbus’s agenda is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The meeting was public, he asked a question, and recorded the answer. He did nothing whatsoever wrong.

Arran

Get it through your pea-sized brain that when someone advocates the killing of gay people because ‘it goes against what god says’ they are doing much more than offering a vague answer to a ‘theoretical’ line of questioning.

Either you agree with that statement or you don’t. If you don’t then it needs to be combatted and I welcome the undercover recording to highlight this.

I really hope Cat Gray was mis-quoted because surely she can’t be prioritising the issues of covert recording over delegates at a student event advocating murder of homosexuals??

Hall

The offender is an Islamic bigot. One of far too many in this country.

This is the sort of thing that’s going on in the University of Manchester. Will there be any backlash, no because there never is any backlash against speakers preaching hate in our universities when speaking on Islam, because it is too powerful a voting block. while reasonable people are no platformed for defending Julian Assange or being a member of a certain political party. It isn’t the first and certainly wont be the last example of this.

Do I want them to be unable to speak here. No. Everyone should be able to speak here. But if we’re going to allow for speaches about stoning adulterers and killing homosexuals, perhaps Tony Benn might be allowed to come speak as well.

James Naish

Struck a reasonable balance here I’d say. I’d be wary of calling for a “backlash” as that’s more likely than not to lead to the Stalinists and Liberals who run the SU to try and impose some sort of ridiculous “ban on hate speech”, or “no platform” policy, rather than to the kind of “backlash” (a debate) which you actually advocate in your comment. If you’d like to see Tony Benn talking though, there’s nothing (as far as I’m aware) stopping you organising a society though and getting it done.

Undisclosed

Actually, there is a “no platform” policy. Little help that was though.

Disgusted of Withington

Offended of Didsbury exhibits all of the worst qualities of the myopic middle classes, as does the editor Richard Cook.

The issue with covertly recording someone’s opinions and then using them to ‘sting’ a group is that in doing so you have given a bias platform to the opinions themselves and their originators without questioning the motive behind their dissemination. In this case, ‘Homosexuals would be “killed” in ideal world’ has been presented without consideration for why the recorder chose to record the meeting or the fact that many bigots hold this opinion regardless of their religious conviction.

That the Mancunion has chosen to give front page coverage to a well known race baiter with some exceptionally questionable right-wing ideology is a tragic indictment to the editorial standards of the paper.

If you had read the article carefully, you would see that – unlike you- I certainly never attempted to conceal my name in relation to this story.

While I don’t particularly think infantile accusations are worthy of serious reply, let me briefly offer one for the benefit of other readers. As sixth form student, I exposed homophobic and islamophobic statements by the extremely right-wing UKIP candidate Dr J Gasper to the media. I have participated in charitable relief for Holocaust survivors and WWII war veterans in Belarus. I have led campaigns at the Union to recognise the Armenian genocide, and assisted (despite short notice) with the yes campaign for the Union commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day. Your typical well-known far-right race-baiter then, eh.

I owe no justification or account whatsoever to anonymous online bullies and please also note for future reference that I will not be engaging in further debate with you.

I see homophobia as wrong in any and every context, just as I see Dr Gasper’s comments on Islam and the Quran as wrong in any and every context. I stand for a tolerant, liberal, pluralist and democratic society, which condemns all types of hatred including anti-Semitism, racism, islamophobia and homophobia. While your comment doesn’t exactly inspire confidence therein, I do sincerely hope that you share my belief in this vision.
Yours ect.

Well said, and thank you for practicing journalism. The whinging from those who would like to give the violent extremists cover is evidence you did the right thing. As Orwell pointed out, journalism is printing things that other people do not want printed; all else is stenography.

Arran

The liberal student left is becoming debased.
The sordid alliance between the Isalmists and’the Left’ is an ideological disgrace.
Hating ‘the West’ should not force you straight into bed with those groups who, though sharing that hatred, also despise the things you (the Left) traditionally stand for (womens rights, gay rights, anti-imperialism, democracy etc etc).

I welcome the reporter’s effort to expose this.

Pierce Nichols

How is Mr Cortbus’s agenda relevant? It was a public meeting, therefore it was perfectly appropriate for him to record it.

The real issue at hand is the fact that MUSU is giving violent extremists a platform and the implicit imprimatur of the university.

James Naish

The “no platform” concept makes its advocates no better morally than those it claims to advocate against. It silences a small group of people for holding and expressing a bunch of oppressive views. Don’t see the hypocrisy?

SC

Disgusted of Withington, the moment the participants in that classroom endorsed the mass murder of gays, you lost all moral authority to complain about how that endorsement of genocide came to light.

This gay man has vigorously defended Muslims, particularly since the 9/11 attacks, and has consistently supported the cause of Palestinians. But now watch this gay man step aside and stand silent as the far right does whatever it wants with this appalling incident. Let it be a lesson not to casually fantasize about homophobic genocide again.

Ash A

Interesting read.

Strange how Mr Cortbus asked the questions with an answer he was expecting to cause uproar, within the question itself.

Lets face it, the media knows how to manipulate a situation arisen by freedom of speech.

And a right to record undercover on university? well.

Double standards maybe.

Mended

She had the right to say it. She also has the right to be considered an evil, twisted person after saying it.

Thodd B.

One of the unintended but very real consequences of freedom of speech is that when you say something utterly reprehensible before an audience in a meeting open to others, one or more audience members may just elect to record what you said. Then, using their own identical right of free speech, they may just go on to expose to a wider audience and/or criticise you.

It is very disingenuous indeed to sling accusations at the person who made the recording when in fact the focus ought properly to be turned upon the person who made the offending, bigoted remarks.

Sahar

What shoddy journalism, and even worse that the Mancunion considered it worthy of being front page. Cortbus attends a women’s workshop where he records the whole workshop and towards the end decides to instigate (or should I say entrap) students, its clear he attended the event to forcefully find the story he was looking for.

Homophobia is a concern on Campus, but as a Muslim I’ll remind you that so is islamophobia. The mi5 and CTU are criticised for similar under hand tactics where they have framed british Muslims, taken recordings out of context, infiltrated communities and created mistrust and paranoia. I guess now Students are doing the same. Anything for a juicy story with the words ‘muslim’ and ‘shariah’ in it eh!

Steve

The only thing that matters in this story is that a speaker said that gay people should be executed at talk on campus.

There was no effort to entrap students. His questions weren’t leading, and any decent human being wouldn’t dream of responding to them in the way the speaker did.

To say this is Islamophobic is ridiculous. No matter what group said this, it would have been worth reporting. It is hate speech.

And the story makes no reference to Shariah law.

Pierce Nichols

It was a public meeting, therefore it was appropriate for him to record it.

And there was nothing entrapping about the question. It just has only one clear answer… and the chair instead chose to give a violent and extreme answer. That is no-one’s fault but hers, and she deserves the full weight of social opprobrium and censure that goes with it.

People who think it’s appropriate to murder homosexuals for being homosexual in any context have no place in a modern society. There’s no amount of appeal to context that can change that.

The fact is that by mis-identifying this as an example of Islamophobia, you give aid and comfort to the EDL and other real Islamophobes.

Concerned student

“Homophobia is a concern on Campus, but as a Muslim I’ll remind you that so is islamophobia”

Nothing to do with the situation whatsoever.

It doesn’t matter WHERE you pull this inexcusable rhetoric from. If ANYone had said this it would be unacceptable. Stop hiding behind your religion.

SC

YOU AREN’T THE VICTIM HERE, SAHAR!

No one in that room was saying all Muslims should be rounded up and murdered. Stop whining about the fact that the outrageous extremism was exposed. Why did the outrageous extremism exist in the first place?

Here’s what you’ll never hear this gay man saying, no matter how private the conversation: that I think all Muslims should be rounded up and murdered. And that, Sahar, is what separates me from the degenerates in that room.

Arran

Are you saying incidents of homophobia should be left unpublished because islamaphobia might be an indirect consequence?
It wouldn’t surprise me if you were, in my experience it is a common trait of the religious to consider their right to not be offended as much greater than anyone else, even if we don’t believe in your pathetics books and gods.

Sam

Absolutely disgusted with this. It is true that we cannot be homophobic or islamophobic however if I walked into the Students Union and said that in my religion “Those who believe in Islam would be killed in an ideal world.” I would definitely be condemned in one way or another. In other words this form of hate speech would never be tolerated if it referred to a persons race or religion, therefore it should not be tolerated in reference to sexuality either.

Philip Styles

“Those who believe in Islam would be killed in an ideal world.”

Well, exactly. The corollary of the situation would be the LGBT society holding an event in which a speaker said precisely that. Can we imagine that for even a second?

Concerned student

well said

Philip Styles

Khadijah Afzal: “What I ask of you is not to be intolerant towards debate especially when it goes against the grain of what you ardently hold on to.”

These words may be quoted to you in future debates…

J

“Muslim hates on gays” is not really front page material, is it? While I find the statements of this society speaker appalling and contemptible, this article seems to be courting sensationalist belligerence as opposed to the meaningful debate that this freedom of speech issue deserves.

josh

It has started a meaningful debate, You know like the one we’re having here. My view is that they absolutely have a right to say express their hatred of gay people. But it is still morally repulsive and it is important they are exposed.

J

Having re-read the article, read the society’s response and thought about it some more, I’ll agree with you here and admit that my first response wasn’t my best. I was mostly just concerned that the article, presented to us in this way, might prompt a disproportionate or unreasonable backlash (that might, incidentally, put off other speakers with controversial views). Of course hate and bile like this needs to be exposed so that it can be rejected by society, which is what Mancunion have facilitated.

@SC I do agree that the views of the speaker are repugnant and deeply insulting to gays and a worry to anyone against hatred.

SC

Some of us don’t see it as a “freedom of speech” issues but as a “basic dignity and security of gays” issue. It’s telling that you don’t.

Philip Styles

I think SC has a point that the words quoted in the article are getting rather close to incitement to murder, which is a criminal offence, though provided one’s speech falls short of that (which can be a grey area) I can only their right to believe and say awful, awful things about homosexuals.

Those defending the speaker have used of the word “hypothetical” to deflect the charge of incitement, but it be would a very naive reading that would conclude that the speaker wasn’t describing an actual desired state of the world they believed could be achieved or to which they aspire. Cortbus was even careful to cover that in his question.

Philip Styles

* defend a person's right

Steve

As a member of staff at a local University in the same regional area, I was disgusted to read this.

Whilst ethics can be raised as an issue about covertly recording, the basics of this is that the conversation should not have happened.

It is certainly wrong that a University can allow such intolerance to occur on campus, and I would hope that the University and the Manchester Students Union take appropriate action again this group.

Sam

I completely agree. Well said.

Pierce Nichols

It was a public meeting; that means it was perfectly appropriate to record it.

D Woolley

It is more than the fact of the university “allowing” the group …. it is a wholesale acceptance of an Islamic viewpoint (not shared by all muslims).
The fact that the viewpoint expressed is anathema to everything the Students Union should be standing for, yet their representative (Cat Grey) is so hooked up in her own ideology she can only respond with veiled threats for the “illicit recording”!

Does anyone question weather a blanket denial of the comments would have been made if there was not proof showing the veracity of them?
I call on Cat Grey to re-evaluate her position! She has put herself in the position not only of defending viewpoints that are counter to her post as “Wellbeing Officer” but attacking others who hi-light that inconsistency!

James Naish

As a member of staff at this University, I have to ask – since when did academics drop the idea of academic freedom? A University, of all places, is precisely the right context in which to have this discussion; a discussion which – like it or not – is being had by certain sections of the British Muslim population, and particularly the youth. Far better than they had the discussion openly, and on campuses, where the arguments can be taken up by others who stand for the values of tolerance.

Jay

It is NOT academic freedom to advocate genocide.

Undisclosed

True, the conversation should not have happened. But Colin did in fact incite them to say it in his deliberate line of questioning. He made a beeline for them already knowing what the outcome was likely to be. Unfortunately for them, they were exposed, and very publicly too.

Being a gay student at Manchester Uni and having been raised a Muslim, none of this shocks me sadly. It just further affirms my belief that one cannot be homosexual and Muslim and makes me happier than I decided to leave a religion plagued by so much hate. Just saddens me that societies like this are at the University, but we do live in a society with free speech.

James Naish

We do, and be encouraged by the fact that the very free speech which allows these biggots to air these abhorent views is the same freedom which has allowed significantly many more individuals to air their vehement anger and disgust at those comments.

Peter M.

Khadijah Afzal: You are entitled to your opinion that a society that kills gay people for being gay is something worth striving for. But at the same time other people have the right to criticize that opinion. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from criticism.

“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Roger B.

People have the right to think and express their opinion regardless of how stupid they are, but the tacit endorsement by the University of Manchester Students’ Union Exec Team in not condemning the speakers statement in their february 18 release shows a distinct cowardice and lack any sort of commitment to basic human rights.

Mended

The comments are disgusting, but I think it’s fair enough to want to look at the recording in full and check the outside possibility that it was edited or modified. Look at the Shirley Sherrod case in the USA, where editing comments out of context destroyed the career of someone who seems to have been innocent.

I’m more concerned that they find taping a public meeting objectionable.

I don’t understand your festive island laws. It seems, correct me if I’m wrong, that it’s at least frowned upon if not outright discouraged that anyone should speak out against extremism – on the grounds that such speech is extreme or extremist (dunt even know what the hell that is)? On beyond Orwell into Heller, is it?

On the plus side, if you actually have a circus skills society, good for them, and you. I hope they turn radical.

Jay

Thank you to Colin Cortbus for exposing the dangerous fascism that lurks on campus. The idea that one should not expose people who calmly talk about killing other people is nonsense and dangerous as well. This organization has no place in a free society.

Jay

BTW, why isn’t the name of the head of the group who so calmly speaks of murdering gay people given while Colin Cortbus’s name is given? Is it the policy of the Mancunian to protect homophbobes?

Steph

I would like to see/ and hear this recording. I have serious doubts about the authenticity of it. I attended this meeting because I was interested in what this society has to say about women’s rights and I did not hear the speaker say ‘homosexuals would be “killed” in ideal world’, nor did I hear Colin Cortbus ask whether ‘in the Islamic state they were advocating they would feel confident to kill him if he “did something as com­pletely innocent as kiss another man […]’. I did not hear a mention of ‘killing’ let alone ‘killing homosexuals’, nor did i hear an affirmative answer by the speaker. Colin may have posed these questions and been given these answers above after the meeting in a private interview the other participants did not hear, but throughout this meeting I heard none of the above. I therefore suspect that Colin grocely misquoted the speaker. Colin did, however, ask how a homosexual ‘in the society the speaker prefers should be ‘treated’in her ideal society. He receivd a somewhat vague answer (the speaker did admit that homosexuals would be punished, but I heard no mention of ‘killing homosexuals’, nor did I hear the speaker advocating to ‘stone adulterers’. This article makes use of lurid reporting and misquotes. The meeting is being depicetd in a very biased, populistic way. The article conveys an image of a bunch of Islmist extremists shouting abuses against homosexuals and other people. But this was not at all the impression I had at the meeting. We all know that homosexuality and sexual morals are a sensitive topic for Muslims, particularly if they believe in Sharia law. So I think a Muslim wanting to give an honest answer to the question ‘how does Islamic law/state treat homosexuality’ will certainly struggle given our very different culotures. – exploiting this for populist reporting will not help making people (Muslim or non-Muslim) more tolerant. These cultural conflict lines need to be discussed and renegotiated. But the article above achieves the opposite. Reporting in this way only deepens mistrust and cultural divides. I am convinced most Muslims will support gay rights once they realise that other people’s gay identity does not harm anybody and does also not harm their religion. I’m not at all trying to defend the discrimination of homosexuals or violence of any kind against anybody. I am fully pro gay-rights. But journalism has to at least try to be honest and credible. what I saw at this meeting was not the horrid bunch of extremists that is being depicted here. What I saw was a group of Muslim women giving honest answers to tough questions and admittedly struggling with the sensitive topic of homosexuality.

Jay

You obviously have neither a good memory nor good hearing. The audiofile is clear. There is nothing “sensitive” about the idea that homosexuals enjoy equal rights under the law. The only “tolerance” you seem to be interested in is tolerance for Muslim bigots.

Tak

It’s not even about homosexuals. Nothing to do with the UK or any modern country. The comment is about anyone, straight or gay, who commits sexual intercourse in public, and in a [theoretical] state where the people live by Islam.

To be honest, it would be outrageous for someone to do that even in this society, but that’s another issue. Between the video and the article, the disparity makes the Mancunion seem slightly delusional in its interpretation of events.

but this is not footage of the meeting of 13th February 2013. This is not even the same room (I can see that from the window behind the speaker) which was def. not there at the meeting and I think the speake is alos not the same person.
This is really weird.

Jenny

The society members have not denied the exchange happened and have actually tried to justify their comments. So I’ll take that as a confirmation.

Colin Cortbus

Dear Steph,

the dates shown on the bottom right-hand corner of the video are the result of unchangeable factory settings on the pen-Camera used for the recording, as has already been clarified by Studentrights.org.uk . The recording was made on the 13th of February 2013.
If you go into Meeting Room 7 (second floor) of the SU I am certain you will find exactly the same window as in the video. Perhaps you are remembering a different event?
Best wishes

Colin C. Cortbus.

Tak

Having watched the video, it has become even more clear to me that the journalist was out to instigate a controversial comment, and it took him a while to find one.

The words of the students have been cut and pasted to give a picture of some kind of preacher and an audience, instead of three people having a casual exchange; the journalist refuses to hear the (crucial) specifics of the person’s opinion. (Definitely would have been something along these lines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zk2E150yr0)

At the very end of the video, he asks the two people if they want to apply these laws in the UK or only in Muslim countries and they say no, then he asks “So you don’t want to include us in your salvation?”, obviously pursuing a yes, until he got a reluctant “maybe one day”.

“It goes against what God say”, do you know what God say?,
Actually it goes against that you say, not God, no religion say that, just people that invent things, because this guy is homophobic, extreme right wing and a fanatic, that’s why

I’d like to see a photo of Colin Cortbus; I went to a session of Women for Liberation on 8th February and there was a man there with a dictaphone asking provocative and off-topic questions about homosexuality to the (Muslim, female) speaker. Makes me wonder if it was the same guy.

Philip Styles

“provocative … questions”

So, the questions are “provocative”, but the answers are, what, exactly?

Gene Spencer

This talk of Mr Cortbus pursuing a hidden agenda or of having approached the incident with premeditated bias is utterly ridiculous.

Are events organised by, or affiliated to, the Students Union exempt from being recorded or reported on according to current legal practice? No.
Does asking a simple question about unacceptable attitudes towards minority groups in society deserve a simple and honest answer? Yes.
Should the individual quoted have chosen his or her words more carefully? Maybe, but thankfully it’s too late for that now.

What cannot be allowed to happen in this country is for those who hold such extreme views to be denied a platform from which their extremism is evident to all who would oppose them. Like right-wing extremists, we cannot allow such opinions to be driven underground. Give ’em enough rope, as Joe Strummer and the Clash once said…Let them have a chair on the BBC’s Question Time.

I’m really surprised people are attacking the young kid who asked the Muslim what she believes, instead of the Muslim who obviously has some pretty wild viewpoints. This man is to be applauded, for spreading truth and making bigots talk

Tak

If you read correctly, this has nothing to do with the Islamic Society. It was a different society with a different name.

Concerned student

oops. My mistake, thanks for pointing that out. I admit that I was wrong and would (if I could) correct my statement.

Aisha

If it makes you feel any better, your taxes go towards keeping 80,000 prisoners in criminal dens where they are taught the tips and tricks of crime (at £30,000 per year each).

The most damaging aspect of IslamoFascisum is that the anti-fascist left no longer confront swhite natianlist facists on any issue which they they have in common with Islam: the death penilty, human rights, gay rights, woman’s rights all off the table for groups like UAF. Worryingly, gay UAF supporters have been threatened by Muslim UAF members at demonstrations, and the same has happened at Stop The War Coalition demos. How long will it be before we see UAF demonstrate with the BNP against gay marches on the grounds that Homosexauls should tolerate the homophobic attitudes of Islam.